It was a remarkable five days. There was 77-year
Pope John Paul II spending five days in Cuba in the land of 71-year old Fidel
Castros only socialist nation in the Western Hemisphere.

John Paul II has been the head of the Roman Catholic
Church for the past twenty years. Fidel Castro has been in power for thirty-nine years and
has outlived more presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Bush and Clinton) than most people can remember and foiled twice as many assassination
attempts.

John Paul and Fidel share much in common through the
recognizable disparity of their ideologies. Both wear uniforms and both, through them,
profess a commitment to obvious zealous ideology. Both men, perhaps better than any other,
recognize the hideous negative potential of runaway Capitalism and both have spoken out
about the dangers of neoliberalism. Pope John Paul II on a number of occasions criticized
the few nations that grow richer at the expense of all others who continue grow poorer.

CNN, in a recent report with Saul Landau, an expert
on Latin America at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona stated,

They share a larger agenda: a common
opposition to current free-market capitalism.

Landau claims the Pope regards this runaway
capitalism as "sinful" while Castro regards it as "shameful." Fidel
Castro said to Pope John Paul, "I am moved by Your Holiness' efforts on behalf of a
more just world." Pope John Paul II said, "Restrictive measures imposed from
outside the country are unjust and ethically unacceptable."

It appears each man, understanding the other well,
has reached an accommodation where rather than positioning themselves in one corner or the
other like two boxers in a ring awaiting the starting bell, have instead determined, due
to the wisdom of age and countless ideological reflections and posturing, that nothing
exists so polar opposite as to prevent a slow steady movement toward reaching some
understanding and through it a limited consensus on what to do next.

Here in the United States, there appears to be a
lack of vision which fails to give any merit in seeking this type of balance. The
stumbling blocks are the limitations of our history and short-sightedness of intellect. We
insist on clinging to many long ago outdated beliefs including and most notably the
dangerous, might makes right.

Opposites

The world, for better or for worse, will always have
men like Pope John II and Fidel. If for no other reason than to provide a counterweight
for any ideology swinging too far in one direction or the other. The world naturally
creates counterbalances striving to achieve some form of steady-state coexistence.

I was first struck by this apparent necessity for
balance when I attended a Broadway performance of the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar in
the early 70s. There was Judas adding definition to Jesus and vice versa. The play
was criticized for its portrayal of Jesus and Mary Magdeline, a prostitute. Perhaps, Jesus
Christ Superstar was more a musical study of caring human beings with individual
shortcomings and frailties, who orchestrated by virtue of circumstance, are a mixture of
nurture and nature, presenting a more realistic balance of what reality if not can be,
then is. Superstar was an attempt at portraying the humanness of its characters through
opposites and attempts at balancing personalities.

It is the lack of this balance, the staking out of
black-and-white positions with obsessive unifocused determination coupled with
peoples inaction in considering counterbalance that leads the world to war and
catastrophe.

Might

As I write this newsletter, last diplomatic efforts
are being made (or so we are told) to try to get Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, to
"come to his senses" in this the latest crisis. The media is filled with threats
such as, "Our patience is running thin" and "The next strike will be
significant. It will not be a pinprick." Perhaps by the time you read this or before
I finish this issue, the United States might have attacked Iraq.

The United States has much practice in throwing its
weight around. In a one-superpower world, it is that much easier to do. The US finds
itself in a boxing ring, in one corner, with the firm conviction that few opponents would
dare to even enter. The few who are so bold are quickly considered a challenge worthy of
quick defeat and are bullied so extraordinarily that they soon throw in the towel before
the match goes too far or are ostracized by fiat of embargo.

This bullying has a name. It is called unilateralism
or extraterritoriality and the more might a nation has, the more unilaterally it behaves.
It is not enough, for example, that we put the squeeze on Cuba and its people, we find it
necessary to put the squeeze on anyone who refuses to participate in the squeeze
itself. Thus, we beat upon not only the people of nations such as Cuba, Iraq, Libya, etc.,
but we also beat upon our friends and allies who do anything to lessen our blows upon
those nations. In the end, it is as Pope John Paul II recognizes, the poor people who
suffer.

No wonder the United States, with all its might,
feels so insecure in the world. If the US citizenry only knew the light in which our
government often is seen throughout the world. If only our media would present a balance
of opinion instead of its own opinion or that which Washington would prefer, perhaps we
ourselves, at least some of us, would start to think and believe that it is our duty and
obligation to enter the ring of opposing ideas and throw some balance into the bout of
lopsided mindset.

The Issue

Just what is the issue regarding Iraq? The US is
supposedly concerned about Saddam Hussein and the spreading of weapons of mass
destruction. Oil, of course, is not an issue. What about our stockpiles of such weapons?
Not once have I heard any news report about the US stockpile or use of weapons of mass
destruction during the current debate. It is estimated that the United States stockpiles
40,000 tons of chemical and biological agents while Russia has 50,000. Why do we have
them? How many people are aware that US has not signed onto the treaty opposing the use of
chemical and biological weapons? Is there any possibility that our government might
not be trusted with these weapons? Ask the people outside the US what they think.

Surely, our friends throughout the world possess
weapons of mass destruction. Israel quickly comes to mind with an estimate of 200 nuclear
devices. Have we forgotten that it was the United States and only the United States that
has ever used nuclear weapons against another people? In the Persian Gulf war with its
Hollywood-like-name, "Desert Storm", depleted uranium shells were used with
little or no opposition. Not only is the boxing match unbalanced but it appears that the
referee is on the take as well. Even worse, it appears we are the referee.

The January-February issue of The Catholic Worker,
states,

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization
reported in December of 1995 that more than one million Iraqis have died - 567,000 of them
children - as a direct consequence of economic sanctions.

On February 10, 1998, Jimmy Carter was reported as
saying that the Iraqi people had suffered enough under Saddam Hussein, that they do not
need the added suffering which would come as a result of US bombing.

In the same article, there is a report of Voices in
the Wilderness, a delegation dedicated to ending the sanctions against Iraq, which
recently visited that country. Rick McDowell, author of the article and one of the
visiting delegates states,

Our findings of increasing suffering, death
and desperations throughout Iraq are confirmed by recent UN reports.

Recent polls show that a majority of American people
support an attack against Iraq. Odds are that the same people would have difficulty
finding Iraq on a map. Where is the balance? Where are the historic reports of Iraqs
history? What is the chronology of US involvement in the region leading up to up to
current crisis? Who originally was instrumental in helping the man come to power? Who
supplied him with the technology necessary to make the weapons of mass destruction?

Just One Instance

I have chosen to write about the situation in Iraq
as it is but the latest example of media unbalancing for the purpose of influencing how
people think. It is no secret that the overwhelming majority of Americans get most of
their information from television. As a consequence of the continuous and repeated
one-sided reporting and characterization of any given situation, crisis, scandal or trend,
the video medium has become extremely adept at creating, shaping, altering and leading
public opinion and belief.

Responsibility

The media (not only of this country, but most
countries) seldom presents a truly balanced picture of world and national events. Thus, it
becomes a matter of personal responsibility for each of us to seek it out. Abdicating the
responsibility of seeking out balance is akin to foreclosing on the democratic process.
Doing so allows life-and-death foreign policy decisions to be made by virtue of public
polling which is in effect self-approval and self-fulfilling prophesy. If one were asked
to design a system which leads a population to a conclusion and then asks them to approve
the conclusion, one could not invent a system of state-corporate-media control more
effective than the one currently in place. Add to that an element of self-righteousness
through religion and you create the means to effectively do just about anything.

Anti-war forces in the United States, opposed
to any new attack on Iraq, have had a difficult time gaining the attention of the
mainstream U.S. media, just as they did before the 1991 Gulf War. After three weeks of
heightened tension in the Gulf, most media outlets - particularly the major television
networks - continue to feature the hardline views of the administration of President Bill
Clinton, as well as those of more hawkish politicians.

Democracy is messy. It requires the involvement of
an informed electorate. After all, it is the State that is in power and it is not
always in its best interest to keep the people informed of the truth as it exists.
The State benefits most when the people are convinced of the truth as the State perceives
it or would like the people to accept and approve it.

An intelligent human, one who considers themself to
be a caring citizen and who believes in the democratic process, will always find, no seek
out, the means to arrive a little closer to the truth as it is rather than as
presented.

This seeking requires a search for balance. Balance
will not be found by reading one newspaper, watching one network, talking to one other
person or even reading one book. Balance is found by coming into contact with
diametrically opposing philosophies, ideologies and points of view. This is how faith in
anything is tested and through the process the faith confirmed.

The dichotomous or even multichotomous exposure of
ideas challenges assumptions and creates necessary contradictions. In other words, beliefs
will be tested. It is through this testing of beliefs, ideas, opinions and even facts,
that either gives credence to or detracts from their merit. Through this process we can at
least call our final conclusions our own. Such action is at the heart of what it means to
be free.

Encouragement

On February 18, 1998 at a CNN sponsored "Town
Meeting" to draw support for the US policy of drawing closer to bombing Iraq,
Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National
Security Adviser Sandy Berger were greeted with what CNN called an, "opinionated
crowd and considerable opposition to another war with Iraq."

On February 19, 1998, for the second day in a row,
polite but skeptical audiences in the South once again surprised the administration
spin-doctors. CNN reports,

rather than the jeers and taunts she
ran into in Ohio Wednesday -- she also found her audiences informed and willing to
question authority.

And again, on February 20, 1998, CNN stated,

Protesters at the University of Minnesota
shouted down U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson on Friday, forcing him to abandon
his half-finished speech.

Here in Vermont, there have been almost daily
demonstrations and actions sponsored by various groups, including the Catholic peace group
Pax Christi in Montpelier and Burlington. There have even been five arrests. Ramsey
Clarks Information Action Center [http://www.iacenter.org] has an in-depth analysis
and description of the Iraq crisis and opposition to its solution by force. IACENTER runs
a continuously updated list of demonstrations including the mass protests planned for 30
US cities on February 28, 1998.

Why the unexpected, voluminous, vociferous,
well-organized response to US policy and why now? It is my contention that the people of
the US, especially the youth, who have felt powerless in the face of one-sided, unbalanced
and unrelenting hammering by the state-corporate media have had enough. They have taken it
upon themselves to counterweight and challenge the voices of authority which for too long
have had their unilateral and unchallenged opinions foisted upon them. It is these
opinions which incessantly focus on topics such as sex scandals, flag burning, welfare
mothers as the root of our economic problems, etc., which has finally fueled the
opposition voices.

Local Action

At noon, on February 23, 1998, I added my voice to
the side of balance in the rush to war. I drove up to Montpelier where there was a short
march through the streets of Vermonts capital which began at the American Friends
Service Committee and proceeded to the governors office where demands to resolve the
conflict through diplomacy were presented. The world famous Bread and Puppet Theater of
Glover, Vermont, lead the silent and solemn group with the pounding of a single drum
followed by a half-dozen fully dressed black figures which represented Iraqi women. The
women carried the limp bodies of the dead in their arms. The march was a powerful
statement of the reality of death due to war, which itself is glorified in our culture.
Peacemaking is not.

During the demonstration, an agreement has been
reached between the government of Iraq and the United Nations which hopefully will resolve
the dispute while satisfying the United States.

Empowerment

There is empowerment in action, even a small action.
It is precisely a loss of empowerment, the disbelief that one individual can make a
difference that allows imbalance to take hold and further disempowerment to ensue. That is
why in the 1996 presidential elections only 49% of registered voters "bothered"
to vote.

How difficult is it to jump into an automobile,
drive ninety miles and participate in a demonstration for a few hours? Yet, not very many
people are willing take such a simple action in support of their beliefs - in the Iraq
crisis, in support of the belief that diplomacy is better than war; that there is always a
better way than attempting to achieve a political goal through violence.

Consider how many people are willing to stand in
line for hours or days to obtain tickets to a rock concert or football game. Consider how
many people actually attend such an event. What if these people turned their attention to
social, peace and justice causes? Imagine for a moment that the media machine which builds
towards such events ad nauseum, all of a sudden were to choose to raise our
"consciousness" about peace and social justice issues instead. There might ensue
an unrelenting creation of everything from official peace doughnuts through official
toilet bowl flush, free social justice cups at hamburger emporiums, etc.

Imagine an all out effort of this powerful and
influential machine to instead turn its attention to empowering the people for the purpose
of relieving suffering and pain. Imagine such an effort to eliminate hunger in the US!
Instead of beer commercials, there might be a call to participate and organize. In place
of sneaker commercials, there might be presented a schedule of marches, people to contact
and where to volunteer. Instead of talk shows, there might be fair and open public
discussions of real issues. Instead of commercials that make us feel guilty about not
contributing just seventy-cents a day to feeding a hungry foreign child, there might be
programs covering and revealing opportunities where the populace could go and help.

No wonder it doesnt happen. The mass media itself
recognizes its own power. Thus, in order to preserve itself and its owners from those who
might recognize that power and dare attempt to use it for the common good rather than the
stockholder good, it must orchestrate a sense of disempowerment of the masses.
Disempowered people are easily lead or made insignificant.

In the past, during time of warmongering, the media
have been highly successful. This time, however, something has gotten in its way - the
Internet. Ever since the media moguls began hyping military action against Iraq, those
opposed began to network using world wide web homepages, usenet newsgroups and e-mail.

There is now an effective high technology tool in
place for the people to use in order to balance the effects of the mass media which is not
about to serve the people, even though the people in theory at least, own the
airwaves. A few empowered individuals seeking balance can make a big difference. And this
time, they have.

Future Prospects

At present, the Internet is not accessible by the
masses. The unemployed, homeless and the poor have no access (with some minor exceptions),
even though they are the ones that could most benefit in finding jobs and opportunities on
the Net. It remains to be seen where the Internet takes us and for how long this fastest
growing of all media remains accessible as a voice of balance for those who do have
access. The Internet is more-and-more becoming the new advertising playground for
consumerism. At any moment, it can be transformed into a closed information highway.
Though this is somewhat unlikely, maintaining a balanced view on the medium will keep all
networking options worthy of consideration open.

In conclusion, the need for balance does not flow in
one direction. Those of us who are committed to peace and social justice issues need
strive for balance in our relationship with each other and with those who present a
counterbalance to our thinking. This balance requires dialogue, having an open mind and
most importantly, listening. Reaching an accommodation with those with whom we may not
necessarily agree, just as the Pope and the President of Cuba have done with each other,
does not belittle our beliefs nor compromise our principles. Quite the contrary, attaining
a balance in thinking opens up possibility and in the long run benefits everyone.

Quotes

He who asks a question may be a fool for five minutes, but he who
never asks a question remains a fool forever.